Markowitz Herbold PC

You don’t need to point out the obvious to a court. You especially don’t need to belabor the point. When your opponent cites a non-binding case—say, an unpublished case, or a case from a different jurisdiction—it’s tempting to latch onto that fact. You may want to repeatedly point out to the court that the case is unpublished, or that it’s from some strange state called “New York.” (Sorry to New York practitioners.) But the judge knows that. I promise you that they haven’t mistaken a case from the N.Y. App. Div. for some case from their state’s highest court. Instead, recognize that the case exists and tackle it head-on. The court wants to see you address the case on its merits, not on its publication status or its jurisdiction. Judges trust other judges, even when they’re writing an unpublished case, and even if they’re from another state. You need to explain why the seemingly adverse ruling of this intelligent jurist is inapplicable to your case. To be clear, sometimes you have no other choice than to rely on a case’s publication status or its jurisdiction. In some scenarios, the case is truly on-point and there’s no credible way to distinguish it. (I say “credible” because every case can be factually distinguished in some way—but not all distinctions are material, and you shouldn’t burn credibility by emphasizing a frivolous distinction.) In these situations, you’ll need to explain that the case is non-binding, and why the intelligent jurist there got it wrong (without attacking their competence). But those situations are rare. More often, there is a good basis for distinguishing an unpublished or non-binding case. But if you can’t, your judge will be inclined to side with a court that has already considered the issue and come out against you. That isn’t a guaranteed outcome, of course; judges still want to decide the cases for themselves. But having precedent against you certainly puts a thumb on the scale if you can’t distinguish it. So, next time you really want to tell the court that a case is non-binding, I encourage you to suppress that instinct. Courts won’t miss your snarky parenthetical. #Appeals #LegalWriting #MarkowitzHerbold

Hot take: shopping for women’s suits is even worse than shopping for jeans.  Adam Starr and I had a trial together in December and we realized our thought process when picking what to wear for court was different.  Like REALLY different.   When I first started practicing law, it felt shallow to ask about what to wear to court as the only woman on the trial team.  But trial attorneys think about how they come across to juries all the time, down to the little details.  Of course we’re worried about what to wear!  A couple tips for female junior associates getting dressed for court: ⏰ Be comfortable (or as comfortable as you can be.)   You might be gearing up for a 13 hour day.  Wear something that won’t drive you crazy.  If you know you’ll tug at a skirt, wear pants.  If you’re always warm, wear something breathable.  You might be carrying boxes of exhibits and managing a lot of binders, so wear something you can walk and move in. 👩⚖️ Ask around. Ask other women lawyers if they have any insight on that judge or court.  🛍️ Shop for a suit before it’s dire. There’s both a ton of options (colors, patterns, trendy designs, matronly cuts, and always so much tweed) and seemingly no options at all (in your size, budget, or location).  But if you keep an eye out and build up a couple go-to suits, your life will be so much easier. There’s no one size fits all, but you don’t want to spend time worrying about what you’re wearing during trial.  Trust me, you’ll have plenty of other things to worry about. How do you pick what to wear to court?

Roblox devs! 🛑 Stop saying that you own "equity" in a Roblox game. 👉 Start talking about money, control, and intellectual property rights. 🚨 Newsflash: There is no such thing as “equity” in a Roblox game. I keep hearing devs say they own 70% of the equity in a game. Legally? That’s not a thing. When you “own” a Roblox game, you're really talking about three buckets of rights: 1️⃣ Control: This is who makes the calls about the direction of the game— creative, costs, management. You can contract this out however you want. 2️⃣ Revenue Share: This is the money. You can split it however — 70/30, 50/50, 99/1 — whatever your contract says. 3️⃣ IP Rights: This one’s different. You can’t say “I own 70% of the IP.” That’s not how copyright law works. If two people co-own a game’s IP? The law assumes they both own it equally, and each person can use it just about however they want, without needing permission from the other. So what does “equity” even mean? Control? Money? IP? If you’re not clear — your contract definitely isn’t. 🔥 Bottom line: Stop saying “equity.” Start talking about control, money, and IP rights.

Being a lawyer is a marathon, not a sprint. Getting all the experiences I want, meeting people in my community, working on causes I’m passionate about, self-development, marketing… none of this happens without staying consistent.  That doesn’t mean being rigid with my routine and habits.  Instead, it means: ✨ Being intentional in how I’m showing up; ✨ Making time for things that are important to me (in and outside of work); and,  ✨ Being reliable so I can be entrusted with responsibilities that let me reach my goals! So, how do you stay consistent? You have to find sparks of joy.  What do you love about your job?  Is it the people?  The puzzles?  The weird legal questions you get to solve?  Whatever brings you joy, show up every day and focus on that–whatever it is.  It’ll make all the other less joyful things (...billing your time, anyone?) a lot easier. As always, thanks Jonathan for your video expertise!